In Agreement...

Lincoln is often depicted as a figurehead of civil rights for African-Americans. It is true, as Delbanco said, that he was against slavery, but not in the radical sense like the abolitionist. According to Delbanco, Lincoln wanted to wain the movement of slavery any farther in America, but never really made it his full goal to eradicate it. Often his intensity on the subject of slavery eradication is one that is brought into question when one questions the political and moral motives of president Lincoln. Now, while Delbanco did mention the Emancipation Proclamation, he never really addressed Lincolns motives behind it. Often, it has been asserted that it was not a bill designed strictly for the rights of African slaves of the time; instead, it was a document designed to hurt the south during a time of civil unrest so that the union could overtake when the south's economy was hurt. For Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation was a device for war. And I believe Delbanco would agree with this assertion. Delbanco brought up a interesting point: Lincoln was after preserving the Union, and at any cost. Quoting Lincoln, he asserted the point that Lincoln was after union in the Union, and would do it if it meant saving all the slaves or none of them. Going back to Lincoln's motives for writing the Emancipation Proclamation, these arguments that Delbanco says furthers the chance he would agree with such an assertion of Lincoln's motives, that whatever could make the Union whole was what Lincoln would do.